So, I think this discussion might be a bit moot in the gadget case. I thought that gadgets were loaded into their own iframes (at least they were at one point) and could not share code by design.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:57 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > GWT's monolithic compile makes for really efficient JavaScript/ > Resource downloads. In terms of providing a solution to the sort of > "traditional" kinds of web app problems, it's hard to argue that GWT > couldn't optimize whatever a developer would write because developers > write for flexibility - whereas the compile is about "there is 1 use > at the end of the day and everything else is just noise". > > I'm sort of wondering though, are there classes of problems that GWT > is admittedly not a good fit for (specifically, according to the GWT > team itself) specifically because of that approach? > > It's kind of hard to explain a concrete example, but let's try this: > If every gadget for iGoogle had to be developed in GWT - each iGoogle > gadget would contain everything that it needed and rely on nothing > shared, despite the fact that most gadgets would (according to the > compile reports) potentially share as much as 99% of their > dependencies. Simply because they are disparate compiles, the > compiler's view into the world is just too small... > > Hypothetically speaking, if the average gadget were something like > 50k, and something like 48k of that was just "core stuff", this > implies that a page with 10 gadgets would be something like 500k (of > just script), but 480k of that was largely just "repeated" core code. > I suppose it guarantees that things won't "break" to an extent with > versioning, but wouldn't it be more efficient in this hypothetical > example to have coded the flexibility into the gadget "container" > once? In other words - if the core were provided and the gadgets > merely used it, the total size of the page would be 68k instead of > 500... Right? And the more gadgets are there, the bigger the > "savings". > > In this kind of case - would the GWT team say "GWT is the right > choice" or no? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > -- Eric Z. Ayers Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
